City of Lawrence v. Nat'l Conference Firemen & Oilers

• Decision Date: 30 April 2021
• Docket Number: 20-P-588
• Citation: 99 Mass.App.Ct. 1122,168 N.E.3d 373 (Table)
• Parties: CITY OF LAWRENCE v. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS, LOCAL 3, SEIU.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

99 Mass.App.Ct. 1122

168 N.E.3d 373 (Table)

CITY OF LAWRENCE

v.NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS, LOCAL 3, SEIU.

20-P-588

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Entered: April 30, 2021.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0.

This appeal presents a question of whether a judge of the Superior Court properly vacated an arbitrator's award on the ground that the award violated public policy. See G. L. c. 150C, § 11 (a ) (3). Because public policy did not justify vacating the arbitrator's award, we reverse.

Background. The arbitrator found the following relevant facts. Anthony Matteo was employed by the plaintiff, the city of Lawrence (city) for forty years in the sanitation department and sewer department. Throughout his tenure with the city, Matteo accumulated a significant disciplinary record. His discharge stemmed from events that occurred on March 7, 2017. At approximately 8:30 A.M. , Leonel Castellanos was passing in front of a city department of public works (DPW) truck operated by Matteo when he heard a "big honk." Castellanos, who was in the crosswalk, approached the driver's side of the truck and spoke with Matteo. An expletive filled exchange of words followed. Analuz Garcia, an employee at North Essex Community College (NECC) and coworker of Castellanos, was walking nearby and heard Matteo swear at Castellanos. Upon returning to NECC, Garcia texted the city's mayor about the incident. Matteo was given a written warning about the incident at the direction of the mayor.

Matteo was concerned that his written warning "might go further," and he went to NECC later that afternoon to explain to a supervisor of Castellanos that the incident earlier in the day had been a "misunderstanding." While at NECC, Matteo spoke with Castellanos, and admitted that his actions earlier in the day were "not professional" and that he had honked his horn because he thought Castellanos was someone he knew. Matteo was provided the phone number of Castellanos's supervisor in order to further explain the situation.

The next day, Matteo was informed that he had been suspended without pay until further notice. Following an investigation into the incident and an appointing authority hearing, a hearing officer concluded that the city met its burden of demonstrating just cause for disciplining Matteo, up to and including termination. On August 31, 2017, the mayor adopted the hearing officer's report and discharged Matteo.

On September 1, 2017, Firemen & Oilers, Local 3, SEIU (union) filed a grievance protesting Matteo's discharge. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union, the grievance proceeded to arbitration. After a hearing, the arbitrator concluded that the morning incident in the crosswalk merited a written warning. Because there was no evidence that Matteo went to NECC to bully, threaten, or otherwise get Castellanos in trouble, the arbitrator concluded that Matteo could not be discharged on that basis.² Accordingly, the arbitrator ordered his reinstatement and payment of lost wages and benefits.

On September 20, 2018, the city filed a complaint in the Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award because Matteo's conduct contravened "a well-defined and dominant policy against retaining employees whose misconduct is inconsistent with public service and the public interest." See G. L. c. 150C, § 11 (a ). The parties cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings and, after a hearing, the judge vacated the award and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for further findings on "the specifics of Matteo's disciplinary history ... and the basis for the arbitrator's decision on the appropriate discipline ... given Matteo's disciplinary history."³ After receiving the arbitrator's response, which largely reiterated the points made in his original decision, the judge granted the city's motion for judgment on the pleadings and vacated the award. The judge concluded: "to impose any sanction less than discharge, which thereby requires the City to retain an employee who repeatedly engages in disruptive conduct detrimental to the City, clearly violates public policy." This appeal followed.

Discussion. On appeal, the union claims that the judge erroneously vacated the arbitrator's award on the basis of a nonexistent public policy.⁴ We agree.

The public policy exception set forth in G. L. c. 150C, § 11 (a ) (3) states that a judge of the Superior Court "shall" vacate an arbitration award where "the arbitrators exceeded their powers or rendered an award requiring a person to commit an act or engage in conduct prohibited by state or federal law." We employ a three-part test to determine whether this narrow exception applies:

"First, the policy at issue must be well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests. Second, the exception does not address disfavored conduct, in the abstract, but [only] disfavored conduct which is integral to the performance of employment duties. Finally, we require[ ] a showing that the arbitrator's award reinstating the employee violates public policy to such an extent that the employee's conduct would have

...